Aircraft crashed at RAF Cranwell

[stickmonkeytamer]

Reports are coming in on the radio of an aircraft crashing at or around RAF Cranwell today. Both crew members are reported to have walked away...

[stickmonkeytamer]

It is believed to be a tutor...

[Mach the Knife]

A more correct headline would be "Tutor makes successful forced landing ivo RAFC Cranwell"

[Blue Bottle]

BBC News - Plane crash lands at RAF Cranwell (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20961632)

[dead_pan]

Hopefully not another prop failure otherwise there'll be some red faces around.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Glad to hear they both walked away...not a good period for the Tutor fleet.

[brokenlink]

Fleet grounded.

[Hueymeister]

Glad I got current this morning then!

[dead_pan]

Hmm, how long for this time, I wonder?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I've complained to the BBC about the exaggerated headline. Let's see if they change it.

[airborne_artist]

And by the looks of the grainy photograph the undercarriage stayed intact. Quite a result given recent rainfall.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65188000/jpg/_65188605_tutor1.jpg

[greenedgejet]

Crew did a good job. Thankfully it wasn't a poor weather day.

Rumour is it was another prop blade loss but on a younger airframe.

No doubt they'll be more official detail on here soon:

Military Aviation Authority | Occurrence Reporting (http://www.maa.mod.uk/occurrence_reporting/index.htm)

[Junta Leader]

Hmm, how long for this time, I wonder?

Rumour is it was another prop blade loss but on a younger airframe.

It's going to be a while if it is another prop blade...

[alexhartshorne]

Another Grob 115E (known as the Tutor) has made a forced landing after departing RAF Cranwell around 12:25 today.

View video: BREAKING NEWS AND VIDEO - RAF Cranwell trainer damaged after forced landing - Local - Sleaford Standard (http://www.sleafordstandard.co.uk/news/local/breaking-news-and-video-raf-cranwell-trainer-damaged-after-forced-landing-1-4662553)

[Tankertrashnav]

From the above link:


MoD spokesman Wg Cmdr Martin Tinworth told the Standard: We employ professional instructors ...


Wouldnt surprise me to learn that someone at MoD is working on a plan to get the job done by amateur volunteers!

[NutLoose]

These are getting like Starfighters, buy a field and sooner or later one will drop in.

Glad everyone walked away from it.

[A2QFI]

Similarity fails on the basis that we don't have 700+ Tutors!

[Neptunus Rex]

Make more Chipmunks, the perfect trainer.

[Hueymeister]

Neptunus Rex Make more Chipmunks, the perfect trainer.


Gets my vote :ok::ok::ok::E:D:}

[CoffmanStarter]

And to think we had over 700 of those wonderful little aeroplanes ... and we owned them not "hired" under a ludercrous PFI deal :{

[A and C]

Is the PFI deal really as bad as Coffman makes out ?

Looking at the money Babcock pay the maintenance guys it would suggest that their manpower costs are less than having service personel working the aircraft.

It would be an interesting debate, can someone out there bring any clarity to this without suggesting that the maintenance hungry oil slick that was the Chipmunk a better aircraft for the task.

( yes I Know the Chipmunk is a delight to fly )

[longer ron]

May or may not be but it does look like this a/c needs a different prop (assuming latest F/L prop related)...so far the RAF has 'got away' with it but sooner or later somebody is going to get hurt...

[NutLoose]

Never a fan of plastic planes as your really limited repair wise, think the main issues with the Tutor is the prop, it seem to remember when Hunting did the trials it wasn't the testers favourite. Chipmunk with a Lycoming would probably have been the best of both worlds. At least you could repair it, or bring back the Bulldog.

[DB6]

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n107/DB6Mk2/Poster.jpg

[NutLoose]

I probably worked in every one of those... We did the acceptance for Hunting when they arrived...

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=142573&d=1158482031

:E

[A and C]

You could not be more compleatly and utterly wrong about the repair of composite structures.

The problem is that in a traditionally metal bashing industry there is little or no understanding of composite repair techniques.

[NutLoose]

I do both, but you belt a wing badly on a metal aircraft I can reskin and respar it, can't do it on a plastic one.

[A and C]

We have repaired badly broken composite wings by scarfing the spar, as I said the metal centric industry has failed to get a grip on composite repair techniques.

[Mandator]

"Maintenance hungry oil slick" - I like that! But it has more charisma than "The Little White Grub".

The Portuguese Air Force Academy successfully operates six Chipmunks which it has re-engined with Lycomings (like some of the glider tugs here). Even so, it would be hugely expensive to put it back into production, as would be the case with the Bulldog.

Irrespective of the platform, the training machine will be vulnerable to any new airworthiness issue which might arise. Provided you have the back-up, and adequate stocks of spares, then these problems can be overcome quite quickly - but back-up and stocks of spares are not 'lean'. You get what you pay for.

[proplover]

Ahhhhh! Chipmunks - ideal for training pilots to use there feet - now a lost art but also it seems not required! Piston mod has reduced oil usage significantly however (and being an owner) the ongoing maintainance is extensive.

Quick note, civilian Chipmunks with Lycomings are not allowed to be aerobatted (this also includes the Portugese ones) - most are used for glider towing or as the Portugese do, very basic flight training.

[Lima Juliet]

The RAF uses a Supermunk for Joint Service Gliding at RAF Halton on nice days...

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2680/5707374209_be6871441f.jpg

Mmmm....:)

[Mandator]

Proplover: You are correct about the UK clearance for the Lyco Chipmunks in the UK, and the fact that the Portuguese conversions are modelled on the UK design finalised by the late Dick Stratton.

However, the Portuguese DO aerobat them - their delegation to the Duxford conference in January 2012 said they are flying to Role Factor 2.5. Their engines havn't dropped out - yet!

[A and C]

It's not just the engine that is the problem with the Chipmunk, the airframe is riddled with maintenance hungry items and parts that are unique to the aircraft.
For example there is a bolt on the tail wheel that costs £75 and has to be drilled to take a split pin, to replace the item will take about an hour and a half, the equivalent item on a Super Cub cost about £6 ( standard AN part) comes pre-drilled and can be fitted in 15 min.

The chipmunk is an aircraft from an age were labour was cheap.

Now back to the subject, any more detailed damage reports on the little white grub........ Sorry Grob !

[Dominator2]

Is it not time to stop all of this ridiculous talk about Grobs, Fireflys, Chipmunks and Bulldogs. Now is the opportunity to buy/lease the correct ac for the RAF. The throughput will now be so small that we only require a small fleet of ac. There are other air forces that can show us the way. Only 2 ac from the start to OCU, that is possible because it has been proven. Hours and hours of low cost flying in an inadequate ac does not provide the best flying training, or the best value for money

[teeteringhead]

Ahhhhh! Chipmunks - ideal for training pilots to use their feet - now a lost art but also it seems not required! ... not required for fixed wing, however comma .........

[t7a]

'Only 2 ac from the start to OCU, that is possible because it has been proven.'

Would that be the JP and Gnat?

[Dominator2]

I was thinking more modern, however, I seemed to manage OK on JP and Hunter.

[A and C]

I think that things are afoot in the direction that you are thinking, I am told that some defense contractors are proposing a three aircraft solution to the training issue.

I think that it is Gama Support & Babcock who are looking at a big Avionic upgrade to the latest of the Grob 115 fleet, this will give a more or less common Avionic and navigation system between the Grob, the next step up that is likely to be the Beech turbo prop that the USAF use and the Hawk. Not quite the two steps that you propose but I can't help thinking that a few hours on a very cheap piston aircraft will inexpensivly weed out those would not stand the whole course while having a standard Avionic fit will allow quicker progress to those who are successful.

On the other hand maybe even the Grob is over the top for the inital few hours of flying grading, for years the Israel used the Piper Super Cub for the first few hours of training and that is an Air Force that does not seem to have any quality control problems with the finished product.

[VX275]

Nutloose, if you think these plastic aeroplanes can't be repaired I suggest you take a trip to RAF Syerston where they have been repairing the RAFs fleet of composite aircraft for years. Some of the damage repaired on these aircrart would have had a metal airframe consigned to the melting pot rather than continuing in service.

When it came time to replace the Bulldog there were three aircraft in the race, the Grob 115, Robin 2160 and the Firefly. I had a small part in the selection process and it was obvious from the start that the RAF wanted the Grob and the selection process was purely a formality. Even if the 115 had been the worst of the three, the RAF was having it.

[CoffmanStarter]

A and C ... I've got nothing against composite built aircraft. I do admit, however, to a life long love affair with the Chipmunk ... IMHO it was the "ideal" Primary Training package ... that's not to say other aircraft couldn't do the job. I do however think that PFI type arrangements dilute the prestige of the RAF ... and that's a purley personal opinion.

Maybe we could borrow the RAF Supermunk ... knock up a few moulds and then get cracking with some Carbon Fiber and a bit of resin and Bob's your Uncle. Nutty can handle the Lycoming spec for us ... with modern materials we might even improve on the original :ok:

[A and C]

I think if you got the three of us building a training aircraft you would probably end up with a composite SF260.

[sp6]

Wasn't the fundamental issue in choosing the 'dog replacement interior space? I'd prefer a 2160i over a Tutor but two of us would be very cramped with bone domes & chutes. Likewise a Slingsby.

I can live with the slack roll response (and crap stall turns are my fault), but it would be nice not to be grounded every couple of months, it is playing havoc with my currency!

[Dominator2]

Some of you QFIs who have been lost in your elementary world for too long miss the point. There are now some fantastic basic jet and turbo prop ac available worldwide. Some of these ac can be configured to be very basic or progress to something quite sophisticated.
With the fidelity now available on simulators and considering our reduced intake numbers, I question whether a Grob replacement is required. Selection could be done purely with synthetics and then the RAF could provide quality training in a quality ac. One that could prepare pilots properly for whichever role/ac they are designed.

[AllTrimDoubt]

Some of you QFIs who have been lost in your elementary
world for too long miss the point.


Perhaps it is you who has been out of touch with the current EFT world?

[Arclite01]

My 2 pennyworth

Having working in procurement for MoD, we rarely buy the best or cheapest or worst or most expensive.

We buy from the supplier that offers the best story...............and who offers the most scope for post sales benefits..............

Actually I think the PC7/9 aircraft were best package.............that we never brought

Arc

[Dominator2]

AllTrimDoubt

The current EFT world is much as it as always been. It is like a self licking lollypop. For years there has been too much hot air and little output for the number QFIs employed within EFT.

[AllTrimDoubt]

The current EFT world is much as it as always been. It is like a self
licking lollypop. For years there has been too much hot air and little output
for the number QFIs employed within EFT.


Looks like you've missed your chance to change it then!

[A and C]

Any word yet on why the aircraft had to be put down in a field ?

Looked like a text book forced landing, hardly the crash that the BBC seem to think it was !

[Willard Whyte]

Perhaps the raf should rent the various Cessnas and Pipers that abound at various flying clubs on many bases?

[Arclite01]

Thinking a bit more about this......actually is it just a propeller failure - if so it's the propeller not the aircraft at fault surely ?...............

And does the whole aircraft need replacing or is the contract due for renewal soon and so we have a chance to replace the whole lot at a fortuitous time...........

Is the Tutor a reasonable aircraft for basic training propeller issue apart ??

Arc

[just another jocky]

For those with access to Dii and an ASIMS log-in, the DASOR from Cranwell, including photos, is available to read, however it is still not releasable to the public. :oh:

I do enjoy reading the outrage, the reminisces and the "...if only they'd done XX and yy then everything would be peachy...". :zzz:

Personally, I think the Tutor has done a sterling job, is very cheap to fly and has proved reliable. Why all the bitching? It also produces some excellent prospects for further training. I believe there ought to be a debate (not on here) regarding the increased use of synthetic training but with current running costs for the Tutor so low, why would you? The calibre of student emerging from the OASC and IOT is waaaaaay higher than in my day and very few students seem to struggle with the course, despite the much reduced hours so tinkering would probably only reduce the quality.

JMHO.

[A and C]

If it as you say a propellor failure it would be interesting to know the history of the prop, at this stage in the fleet life it is unlikely that this was a new propellor and I would guess that due to the propellor overhaul life the the age and number of times the propellor has been overhauled it is unlikely that the propellor age matches the airframe life.

I am sure that there are people looking into this to find if there is a common thread. Having used a few overhaul agency's in the UK for composite propellor work we have always found that the factory in Germany is better value for money in terms of quality vs price.

[RowT8]

When the Tutor was selected, I think that there were 2 propellers available - made by Hoffmann or Mühlbauer. With a similar 3-blade, composite, variable-pitch Hoffmann in use on the Firefly, it would have seemed a reasonably safe choice. If, as it seems, there have been 2 similar failures after 13 years and some half a million hours of use, that is a trend that would have been difficult to predict at the start.

The Bulldog replacement had to meet a specification to satisfy the needs of air cadet AEF (by far the largest number of hours), direct-entry EFT (much of it for rotary pilots for all Services), UAS training, elementary navigator training, multi-engine lead-in training and the first stage of multi-engine QFI training. Of the aircraft then available, this aircraft, specially tailored to cover all aspects of the task, presumably offered a logical solution, even if not the most outstanding first aircraft for RAF fixed-wing pilot training. The length of the original PFI contract should have allowed UK MFTS to start with a clean sheet of paper, with piston, turbo-prop and jet options as a first stage.

[NutLoose]

A and C
I think if you got the three of us building a training aircraft you would probably end up with a composite SF260.


Used to look after a SF260, marvellous aircraft, but shame it was Italian, I had a cracked nose leg trunnion and even AOG it took them over 6 months to produce one, the rest of the parts too were a pain to get hold of. The supply to the Military was apparently better, I do hope so.
You could have a combination, the piston one and the advanced Turboprop that went like snot.

As for Pipers and Cessna's as none aerobatic I would have thought they were a none starter, mind you Piper did take the PA32 modified the fuselage and made it aerobatic for the Military, also being tandem seating it would align with the later types the RAF operate and be cheap to run being based on a Piper PA32.
See

ENAER T-35 Pillán - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENAER_T-35_Pill%C3%A1n)

[Lima Juliet]

Never heard of Cessna 150 or 152 Aerobat then? :p

http://strictlyflying.com/images/p/aerobat-240.jpg

About 1,500 still operating worldwide...

[CoffmanStarter]

LJ ... But not much cop for a military Tyro though :ok:

[Lima Juliet]

Not much cop for a military tyro

I guess this goes down to Dominator's point, though. If the RAF had a 2-type trg package, then EFT and UAS could quite easily be supplied by RAF Flying Clubs and Cessna Aerobats. You only need to teach your EFT/UAS students (tyros) roughly the PPL syllabus before you send them to Tucano or PC-9 - the Aerobat or maybe 2160 Robin/Citabria/T67 would be perfect and cheap (you could add a few hours of aeros as an intro).

Don't forget there are many of us who climbed into JPs at CF or LOO with just a PPL under our belts. Next was Hawks at Valley followed by more Hawks at TWU before OCU. So in principle, I think Dominator is right. Big savings to be had too in equipment and manpower...:ok:

LJ

[LFFC]

Don't forget there are many of us who climbed into JPs at CF or LOO with just a PPL under our belts.

... and many others who climbed into JP5s at CW with no previous flying experience!

[Shackman]

.. and many others who climbed into JP5s at CW with no previous flying experience!

.......and even more who started on JP3's and 4's at Acklington, Leeming, LoO, CF, Syerston, CW etc with no previous (in the days when we could afford it) - and lest I forget to add, JP1'a at Hullavington etc.

[Bob Viking]

Just because that's how it used to happen, it doesn't mean it was right. QFI's used to beat their students over the head and ritually humiliate them (at least that's what several posters on here claim) but it doesn't mean it was the best way to impart knowledge to wannabee pilots!
BV:oh:

[The B Word]

BV - rubbish! Nail some sense into the little sh!ts, that what I say...if you don't hit them they don't learn!

;)

[Easy Street]

You can nurse practically anyone through any course if you spend enough time and effort on them, spoon-feed them enough information, hug them when they screw up and give them another chance every time they fail.

There is a lot to be said for the sink-or-swim approach to military flying training. Those that make it through will be exactly the kind of guys you need on a busy squadron where time spent nursing the strugglers is time not spent developing fighting capability.

This could be judged a wasteful approach as you have to input enough students to allow for a subtantial chop rate. However, the total cost of an IOT course and a bit of early flying training is peanuts when set against repetetive, basic front-line flying designed to allow low average pilots to cope...

PS not advocating violence or bullying! Just a firm approach to those who take forever to learn new stuff, or who learn stuff OK and then leak it like a sieve!

[5 Forward 6 Back]

ES, every course I've been involved in, as instructor or student, did exactly that! I mean a firm approach to people who couldn't learn in time or those who forgot skills rapidly. If we saw genuine potential in people we'd work hard for them, and we'd forgive out-of-character errors with a low grade and permission to carry on. I find it hard to believe that front line flying on your type's been made more repetitive due to a perceived drop in the quality of the pilots....? It got dull at times on mine, but that was due to lots of reasons other than our own ability.

Anyway, if we could afford it, we'd breed much better pilots by throwing everyone through a Tucano/JP/M311 BFT course a la the scheme in the early 90s. Make it a bit longer and people could cope with it no problem after a swift 10 hour grading/USAF UPT-style course on contracted Cessnas or the suchlike. You'd be learning all your skills in a "proper" aeroplane rather than trying to download things to save cost, although at least the current system means they're familiar with the concepts by the time they fly a Tucano.

But we can't afford it, so it's better to stream people before they've gobbled up 100 hours in a turboprop, and considering we need something to do lots of other tasks like Air Cadet AEF, I think we're stuck with an EFT airframe for the forseeable future.

With the introduction of a formal branch for RPAS pilots, they're going to need some flying training too; and I doubt many would say that you'll get a good grounding for Reaper if the only things available were M311 and Hawk T2.

[Hueymeister]

Photos apparently show an identical failure of blade weight and prop.:}:sad:

[A and C]

The technical report on the prop will make interesting reading.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

You only need to teach your EFT/UAS students (tyros) roughly the PPL syllabus before you send them to Tucano or PC-9...Don't forget there are many of us who climbed into JPs at CF or LOO with just a PPL under our belts.


As 5F6B alludes to, it might be rather difficult to stream people accurately if all you did with them was an approximation of the PPL syllabus!

[Thone1]

@DB6:

Just my thought.
Having flown the mighty Firefly I loved every minute of it.
Not much that could go wrong, no matter how hard the dumbest student tried to rip off the wings on that wonderful machine.

Tom

[Bob Viking]

I second that. I did JEFTS at Church Fenton on the M260 and it seemed like a great little toy at the time (more powerful than any of the alternatives). Having subsequently flown the Bulldog, Chipmunk (I always hated it, mainly because of the ridiculously uncomfortable cloth cap under the helmet!) and Grob I'd say it definitely compares more favourably. Now, in light of the Grob shedding prop blades like they're going out of fashion, it seems like an even better choice!
BV:cool:

[Dominator2]

I have followed this thread with interest. It would appear that many of you are too close to the coalface to see the coal. There appears to be an argument that the Tutor is cheap to operate and therefor is the best ac for AEF and UAS operations. Since EFT is only a small operation in comparison they have to put up with the Tutor. Many hours flying an inferior ac does not make a good pilot.
May I suggest that the training of RAF pilots is of prime importance. The RAF should strive to provide the best platforms for student pilots to train on, be that synthetic or real. There should be no compromise in the choice of ac for the sake of AEF or UAS flying. I still maintain that after selection there should only be 2 ac to the OCU. LJ appears to come from a background where he can see the wood from the trees. Easy Street, I totally agree with your sentiment.
“There is a lot to be said for the sink-or-swim approach to military flying training. Those that make it through will be exactly the kind of guys you need on a busy squadron where time spent nursing the strugglers is time not spent developing fighting capability”.
If the RAF had to correct ac at BFT we could easily sort the wheat from the chaff. I believe streaming should be after 100+ hours. Most of our large ac now have a 2/3 man flight deck and the skills required are significantly different from those going to Nimrod or VC10.
I observe a significant number of people on the Tutor merry-go-round. See how many years can be spent in Raucbey Lane with the odd excursion to a UAS. When too old then continue in some guise on an AEF. It would be preferable if more of these people fought for what is right rather than trying to feather their own nests.
The debate about which is the best ac for EFT would be irrelevant if the whole training package were reviewed and bought into this century. The Air Force Board should be directive on what it wants and not allow the financiers to interfere again. How long is the RAF going to sit and wait for someone else to come and sort out the mess?

[Mach the Knife]

Wot? Like MFTS then?

[Lima Juliet]

What the great Dominator says...^^^^^:D:D

I've seen graduates of EFT and also those from UAS who have struggled with a basic PPL - failing exams, almost incomprehensible on the radio and struggling with handling in lessons before getting anywhere near a GFT! I don't see EFT/UAS creating any better product that a basic EASA/JAR PPL could not produce. I also agree, stream them at 100hrs+; so get them through a PPL, get them on a decent Turbo-Prop and then give them another 50-odd hours and then assess/board/stream. How many of us saw guys struggle for the first half of basic flying trg and then come good in the final stages, then going onto Harrier, Jaguar, Phantom, Buccaneer and Tornado and becoming fantastic warfighting aviators. At present, they are assessed for half a dog's watch and then a decision is made on their future whilst they still smell of Cranwell Holy Water :ugh:

LJ

[greenedgejet]

The old argument that the Tutor has done xxxxx thousands of hours so it must have been the most reliable aeroplane the RAF ever owned is based on Pre Haddon Cave arguments and we all know statistics can hide the truth.

At that time there was no MAA or associated list of Duty Holders. Back then the pilot could almost always be blamed as negligent without regard for other factors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Scotland_RAF_Chinook_crash

If there was an unserviceability it was normally verbally filed and supervisors and engineers might respond along the lines of "oh well they all do that"

Times have changed folks - SIX people are dead as a result of Tutor collisions. Of course there were other factors involved and most of these have come out in the legal proceedings and AAIB and Military reports.

Thankfully now, despite a few moans all round, we are getting to grips with incident reporting, Risk management and seeking to develop the best training system with limited resources.

The prop can probably be changed to another manufacturer /design quite quickly. However, there are still plenty of issues with the Tutor apart from the propellor. Sadly, whilst the DASOR system has helped raise military awareness in a very positive way, the Civi world has had fewer reports over the past 5 years in GA CHIRPs depsite the Tutor being on the G-reg.

Good stuff:

TAS - when it works it can raise traffic awareness. But it can't be relied upon.

Strobes and Landing Lights - now much brighter.

View over the nose on flapless approach is good.

Babcock Engineers are doing sterling work and all they can to improve reliability - but these are 12 years old (except for EA models) and things wear out - like flying surface bearing components corroding.


Less Good:

Things like nose wheel shimmy (Peterborough Connington: Air Accidents Investigation: Grob G115E Tutor, G-BYUW (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_2010/grob_g115e_tutor__g_byuw.cfm))

Bubbles in the Wingspar CF bond/glue structure (remember the formation landing: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Grob%20G115E%20Tutor,%20G-BYWH%2001-11.pdf )

Canopy design that makes egress difficult and lack of go forward straps makes lookout harder.

Colour scheme that all users and ATC are concerned about except on blue sky days:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/glider-conspicuity-study.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27157/ServiceInquiry_TutorAircraft_Part_1_5_Causes.pdf

No flick manoeuvres permitted. Short coupled and high mounted Fin and circular fuselage x-section make for interesting spin characteristics. The tail skid/lower fin is there for a reason!

Over weight (partly due to 10 years of water ingress and now extra kit like TAS) - means Instructors have to loose weight or only select light students for a half decent fuel load.

Under powered (poor climb rate - can't get above weather - EFT spin sorties mostly taken up with climb time = more time at high power so more fuel used and more noise per hour).

High drag wing that leaves stagnant water on top of the flaps even at high speed cruise. The under wing camber profile also means bracketing pitch and power to achieve S&L - so attitude flying becomes less instinctive for students to grasp.

The Tutor would make a wonderful weekend PPL 80 KIAS touring aircraft - wait a minute - that's what it used to be in G115A format! Adding a glass cockpit for MFTS won't improve the main issues mentioned here and by others.

[Lima Juliet]

No flick manoeuvres permitted

They've been flicking them for years - is this why the props have started to fall off?

LJ

PS. Looks like a flick roll at the end to me in this clip :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8WM03PGno

[NutLoose]

Reading some of the incidents such as

The Grob 115D2 is equipped with an oil-filled shimmy damper that is designed to dampen out the vibration. However, shimmy can still occur if the damper is not correctly maintained, the runway surface is poor or a load is placed on the nosewheel while the aircraft is travelling

Most Cessna's etc we now use the LORD rubber shimmy damper and since going over to them from the oil filled ones several year ago and we went from a report of shimmey at least every couple of weeks on the fleet to one every couple of years or so.

Traffic awareness something like this?

Zaon Flight Systems - PCAS XRX Overview (http://www.zaon.aero/content/view/12/26/)

[Uncle Ginsters]

LB,
Always enjoyed that display...except on cloudy days when the Tutor becomes invisible from below:8

I always thought it was so kept tight to the airfield & crowd for effect but now I think it was just in case of a prop incident like these to be assured of making the field;)

[OafOrfUxAche]

The RAF should strive to provide the best platforms for student pilots to train on


The RAF should strive to provide the best platforms for every role it does. The excellent politicians give the RAF free rein to pick whichever platform it wants, yet the silly RAF keeps choosing lemons!


SIX people are dead as a result of Tutor collisions


Please explain exactly how this is relevant to this thread? And could you please identify a training aircraft which is immune to mid-airs?

[AOJM]

These aptitude tests are apparently so good that they can tell if some one is going to be a good pilot before they even get in the aircraft, it's a shame. The training package provided should do the rest, yet as some are saying the standards are not being met perhaps? I agree that stream should be given dependent on EFT ability, I'm sure it would prevent set backs later down the line; saving money.


Also, the no flick maneuver rule is new.

[A and C]

Others above have taken exception to your post on the grounds of factual accuracy.

I to would like to correct a few issues

Corrosion on flying control bearings should not be an issue, these can be replaced by any appropriately qualified EASA 145 company.

Overweight aircraft, the weight after the traffic mod was exactly what was expected and the fleet weight growth is insignificant ( have you seen most of the M&B records for the aircraft........ I have )

[just another jocky]

It seems we all know better the solutions to problems that we believe exist.

[longer ron]

JaJ
I always try to keep it simple - as I posted way back at post 22...

but it does look like this a/c needs a different prop (assuming latest F/L prop related)...so far the RAF has 'got away' with it but sooner or later somebody is going to get hurt...

If the RAF want to keep operating this a/c...they have to change the prop...simples :ok:

[Corporal Clott]

Whilst I agree with this

Also, the no flick maneuver rule is new

It is also something we shouldn't have been doing since the start of operating the aircraft! :=

Like others have said, there is no telling how much damage we have done to the aircraft since service entry, let alone the props, for doing manoeuvres that the manufacturer never envisaged during the design and certification phase. I'm guessing someone owns this risk?

Furthermore, when I visited Linton recently, someone told me there were 12 pilots going through training at the moment. 12 no wonder the place was like a ghost town! Are we really keeping Linton open for 12 students when they could move to Leeming and utilise the facilities there and put Linton under care and maintenance? Or even move them to Cranwell that is also like a ghost town at present with a small scattering of officers going through IOT, engineering training going to Cosford and 55(R) long gone.

All is very definately not right in the training world - in my humble opinion of course!

CPL Clott

[Uncle Ginsters]

the manufacturer never envisaged during the design and certification phase.

A point of some debate over the years...the Flight Manual describes spin entry and limits that to below 100kts - a similar manoeuvre and speed to that used for 'Flick' or 'Snap' Rolling except the latter has generally been flown under power. The difference thereafter once unloaded decreases the stress on the ac (compared to both the entry manoeuvre and a full stall). The guys on CFS(Tutor) certainly had no qualms either.

To say that Grob never envisaged or certified it though is not true - the Grob TP told me so :ok: The frequency of those manoeuvres though is a different issue.

The only thing, as I see it, in debate is fatigue-life and its management for an ac ostensibly designed for the GA market, combined with a prop/engine combination defined post-design and a customer making such regular visits to all edges of the flight envelope. That isn't defined so well...to say the least.

[Hueymeister]

Engineers at Benson reckon the water absorption is way over-hyped. Surveys carried out on a number of airframes has proved this 'phenomenon' to be negligible.

[A and C]

I would agree with the guys at Benson on the water absorption.

As for propellor replacement my guess is that the only company that would be able to certify a prop in any reasonable time scale would be MT propellor.

We have had no trouble from their products mainly fitted to Extra 300 aircraft were the prop gets quite a hard life.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Corporal Clott,

Any money you'd save from putting Linton under care and maintenance would be wiped out several times over by the cost of moving the whole operation somewhere else.

Moreover, the fact there's 12 pilots there right now is because the whole training system is still seeing the fallout of SDSR and the mass redundancies, and this isn't the steady state plan. Within a couple of years, Linton will be up to more than double those numbers and the 1 FTS operation will be large enough to justify its own airfield again. We can't move it one month and then move it back in a year.

You must be an Air Officer. "12 students? Just move them! Leeming's fine, it's got a runway? Crosswinds? I don't care, just move it!" :ok:

[langleybaston]

What's this about cross-winds at Leeming? In my time there the annoyance of the "gap-wind" was well understood and manageable with a good forecaster and authoriser or whatever?

Have they changed the runways or something? Was there not one other than 16/34 ........... or am I misremembering?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

There's a short cross runway, but I'm pretty sure it's too short for Tucanos. Certainly too short for Hawks. It always seemed to have a fairly steady 21/03 wind whenever I visited!

[langleybaston]

Thanks for that runway info ...... I think JPs had no problem but that might be rose-coloured specs [by the justly infamous author of "Forecasting the Gap Wind at Leeming"] !!!!!!!!!!

[orca]

5F6B,

Mate - purely for my own education do you know what the steady state target actually is post SDSR? And when is 'steady state'? When I was in FT the Holy Grail for FW types was 60 IPS - which was reduced to 40 IPS (I think) when I had just left Valley.

That was when we had GR4, F3, Jaguar and Harrier 'mouths to feed' with siro 120 FE@R (although I doubt we called it FE@R then!).

If I had to take a wild stab (based on GR4 draw down, no F-35 yet and Typhoon numbers not exactly rocketing) I would assume the RAF needed no more than 20 ab-initio FW pilots a year for the foreseeable future.

Am I far off the mark? (Wouldn't be the first time!;))

[5 Forward 6 Back]

You're not far off the mark; I'll grab some exact numbers, but I think we're looking at 24 for the forseeable. I have no idea if JSF even factors in numbers, yet, but the other 2 still need new people for a while.

Considering when IPS was 40 we had 4-5 courses of around a dozen at Linton, I think we'll soon find it busier again.

[Lima Juliet]

Are we really keeping Linton open in the hope that we might be able to train 24 pilots on a basic training course a year? With that kind of waste, can I have my Child Benefit back please, Mr Cameron? :ugh:

Put the Tucanos into Cranwell and shut Linton - it's the best option.

LJ

[Uncle Ginsters]

To Cranwell? Surely Valley would be a better place - the Cranwell area is already maxed. Valley has the Welsh MTA and a low-level playground on its doorstep and, as discussed, a much reduced throughput.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

They might fly a fair few more than 24; 24 IPS means you need to put more in.

As far as basing goes, I don't fancy flying Tucanos at Valley without an immersion suit, and it's not cleared for them (or at least wasn't when I last flew one). Cranwell, sure; but with the messes traditionally full, accommodation across Lincolnshire full (Waddington appears to be overflowing everywhere) and no new facilities to base a squadron of Tucanos from, where would you put them?

And, thinking like an Air Officer, would sorting those problems be cheaper than just running Linton for a few more years until it's your successor's problem...?

[Lima Juliet]

The messes are virtually empty at Cranwell and the airspace is pretty empty as well - no more Harriers at Wittering and Cottesmore, Barkston run back from norms, the Dominies gone at Cranwell and little going on at Wyton apart from EFT/UAS/AEF. The likes of Waddington and Coningsby are running at the traditional rates, but their working heights are higher and often North or East.

Take it from me, Cranwell has stacks of capacity to absorb 24IPS (and some), both for flying and domestic support, plus plenty of airspace. Either Cranwell needs to shut or Linton - guess which?

I agree about Valley, and that is another option. How difficult is it to clear an internal immersion suit for Tucano? Surely, not that hard?

Whatever happens, with a reduced fleet to feed pilots to, and a fleet of Grobs that are starting to show their fragility, it is time to start thinking radically. It must be time to renegotiate with Ascent for MFTS and come up with a system that will deliver at 24IPS - not one that can hardly deliver efficiently at half that.

LJ

[Hummingfrog]

Any more news on what happened? Rumour is the same as last time:(

HF

[Qfeye]

LJ

As usual you are commenting 'with authority' on something which you clearly have no idea about!

If you were anywhere in the food chain you would know that Cranwell will not be in a position to take Tucano when the planned Eft restructure goes ahead. Valley? Clearing a new piece of AEA for a specific type is not simples.

I have nothing against free speech, but having seen many ill informed posts by you on subjects such as the Nimrod and Tutor I think you should do a little research before posting so that you don't look silly when people who really know what's going on read this forum.

Btw. Many of your posts are good. Don't spoil your credibility by posting tosh.:ok:

[SwitchMonkey]

Plenty of airspace in Lincolnshire, perhaps.

Plenty of capacity in the Cranwell circuit? Don't think so.

Lots of (all in the future?) EFT at Cranwell - lots of slow circuits.
ME trg at Cranwell. Some possibility of exporting ccts to... 1 Gp airfields who ( rightly) prioritise their own traffic.
Why would you want to add a third type into a busy circuit full of the least experienced pilots we have? (I mean students not QFIs :O )

And the fact that Dominies have left doesn't really alter the price of fish, 6-10 movements a day and very little circuit work does not relate to the number of circuits that BFJT would need.

[1066]

Back to the current problem with the Tutors.
Is it coincidence that both the recent prop incidents happened at Cranwell?
I don't know.
Does anyone know, in both cases, which RW, tarmac or grass, was used for take off? May not be relevant but it could be a consequence of considerable flying off the grass.
Is the Boscombe prop incident relevent? They also operate off the grass sometimes.
How about the crankshaft extension that the prop is mounted on. Am I correct that this is longer than in the A model? CFS or was it Boscombe had it lengthened to modify, (improve?) the spin behaviour?

Is it a combination of vibration from rough surfaces magnified by the extended prop shaft?
Are take-offs at Cranwell more likely to be at max weight than at AEFs or UASs?
I'm a very interested and concerned AEF, since Chipmunks, over 65 auth.
No I don't want the Chipmunk back for AEF flying and I doubt many of the cadets do either.
Looking forward to any thoughts!

1066

[Qfeye]

1066

The AC involved in this incident had not been at Cranwell long so I doubt the grass runway frequency is a factor.

Weight limits are in force across Tutor operations and I believe most units use max weight as often as Cranwell.

As an aside I think we're lucky both recent incidents were at Cranwell, from that particular runway. Lots of usable fields. Other units are not as well placed.

[Just This Once...]

Given the studies to date I think the Tucano would need a completely different canopy to enable immersion suits to be viable.

[dctyke]

Linton will have plenty more students soon, however they wont be british!

[just another jocky]

The messes are virtually empty at Cranwell and the airspace is pretty empty as well - no more Harriers at Wittering and Cottesmore, Barkston run back from norms, the Dominies gone at Cranwell and little going on at Wyton apart from EFT/UAS/AEF. The likes of Waddington and Coningsby are running at the traditional rates, but their working heights are higher and often North or East.

Take it from me, Cranwell has stacks of capacity to absorb 24IPS (and some), both for flying and domestic support, plus plenty of airspace. Either Cranwell needs to shut or Linton - guess which?

I agree about Valley, and that is another option. How difficult is it to clear an internal immersion suit for Tucano? Surely, not that hard?

Whatever happens, with a reduced fleet to feed pilots to, and a fleet of Grobs that are starting to show their fragility, it is time to start thinking radically. It must be time to renegotiate with Ascent for MFTS and come up with a system that will deliver at 24IPS - not one that can hardly deliver efficiently at half that.

LJ

LJ - Qfeye is right, whilst you make reasonable sounding points, in fact they are based, at least in some cases, on utter tosh.

Cranwell is overloaded (or was until last week :}) with both visual circuit & radar traffic. The airspace is so busy that new deconfliction measures will shortly be unveiled to mitigate against the airprox/mis-air collision risk.

And as for "...little going on at Wyton apart from EFT/UAS/AEF." well you can join a lot of other folk who clearly consider over 3500 movements per year, with an average of over 100 per day for the last 4 years (that includes Sat & Sun too) to be "little going on". :ugh: Compare that level of activity with the MOBs and you'll start to get the picture.

Again, far too many folk on here think they know what's going on, think they can identify the problems and think they know the best solutions. Personally, I'll leave it to those still in the service who are in a position to know & do something about it. There are always other factors which those outside are simply unaware of. Just because "we did it like this" in the olden days doesn't mean it would work today.

1066 - a lot of questions, some of which may be relevant, and if they are then they will be addressed by the right people, but not on this forum.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Tucanos used to be immersion suit compatible, but the clearance was removed. The reason why means re-clearing it would be immensely difficult. The canopy is certainly an issue but not the only one, I doubt we'll ever fly them in their current form with goon bags.

Regarding airspace, I think Leeming or Valley would be the only sensible option. There's still a lot of low flying in the BFJT syllabus, and LFA11 doesn't really cut it. I don't think there's room at Cranwell for 72(R) Sqn, and certainly not room in the circuit unless they found another RLG?

My comments on accommodation were based on a mate who's just been posted to Waddington, to find a bit of an accommodation crisis across all of RAF Lincolnshire. He nearly ended up in Kirton in Lindsey!

[Lima Juliet]

OK, I get it.

http://farcanal.biz/catalog/images/WM2367.gif

But I still don't think keeping Linton open for 24IPS can possibly be worthwhile? Even with some studes drummed up by International Defence Training. How about Wittering or Leeming? I've been to both of them recently as well and both were also pretty quiet.

I thought we were supposed to be rationalising the Defence Estate? Don't they know we're skint! :}

[Lima Juliet]

JAJ

well you can join a lot of other folk who clearly consider over 3500 movements per year, with an average of over 100 per day for the last 4 years (that includes Sat & Sun too) to be "little going on".

My internal calculator baulked at these numbers. 100 movements per day (inlcuding Sat & Sun) is 36,500 movements - that would be busier than Leeds Bradford in a year. I don't think so! :=

[Lima Juliet]

Qfeye

When did I say I was stating things "with authority"? This is a rumour forum for discussing stuff just like you would in the crewroom. If you don't like my 'authorative tone' - tough :ok:

LJ

[Qfeye]

LJ

No offence meant by my comment. Had we discussed it in the crew room, no doubt it would continue in the bar.:ok:

[just another jocky]

My internal calculator baulked at these numbers. 100 movements per day (inlcuding Sat & Sun) is 36,500 movements - that would be busier than Leeds Bradford in a year. I don't think so! :=

Straight from SATCOs mouth, although I guess it depends what you define as a 'movement' :} - any touchdown (roller or landing) is the norm I believe. All 15-17 a/c airborne at once is not unknown and don't forget the AEF do 20-25 min sorties plus lots of circuits to be taught and practiced so average of 100 per day is understandable I guess. Average is a different timescale from total number and they're all rounded down anyway.

It's this kind of misunderstanding of the amount of flying at EFT and other Tutor bases amongst the RAF & GA that leads to cock-all support for flying ops at Wyton yet it's busier than most of the MOBs added together. :ugh:

My bad on the dropped zero. :O

[Dominator2]

I know that this thread has drifted in a few directions, however, some of you must keep up. When the RAF gets a new basic trainer and gets rid of EFT there will be loads of room at Cranwell both in the Messes and in the circuit. Cranwell could do all basic up to streaming, 100hrs ish, and multi engine advanced. Valley could do stage 2 basic and fast jet advanced.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

... which would be great if, as I said a few posts ago, we could afford to send everyone through a Tucano-equivalent course like we used to.

We'd all love to ditch the Tutor, slim down EFT, and instead send everyone through Linton before streaming after 100 hours, then give the FJ guys another 100 hours there before sending them to the Hawk. In reality though they're never going to pay for that.

[angelorange]

2 pennys worth.......

Keep the G115s for AEFs and maybe grading duties but with new props.

What about EFT/BFT?

Back in the days of JEFTS when all 3 services flew EFT and MELIN together on Firefly (UAS had Bulldog and later G115), the Tincan was grounded for a while and the RAF did a study for 100h T67M260 to Hawk.

Some studes went to Canada in the end: NFTC (http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp)

The idea of downloading expensive training onto cheaper platforms works if the platform has enough versatility. Adding weight and glass cockpits to an already slow machine that might be alright for AEFs isn't going to cut the mustard. Most of the yellow 260hp Fireflies have gone abroad.

Replacing EFT and BFT with one platform might have financial and training merit.

PC21 is a very fine machine but extremely expensive. The Grob 120TP could work. Or alternatively an updated version of that other German machine that the Luftwaffe wanted (it beat PC7 and others in 1985 eval testing):

RFB Fantrainer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFB_Fantrainer)

fanjetaviation.com: Home (http://www.fanjetaviation.com)

But, having bought F4s and F104s, the German Govt used US/Arizona based scheme instead Factsheets : Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program (ENJJPT) (http://www.sheppard.af.mil/library/factsheetspage/factsheet.asp?fsID=5168)

Royal Thai AF used FT400 and FT600 for >20 years but had very different locally made wings instead of original composite ones.

Other options might be to use other Allied/NATO facilities that have been drawn down with cut backs or pool resources to form a European Military Flight Training School. Or lease civi aircraft from UK flying schools.

There is even a conference on the subject here: IQPC Military Flight Training 2013 (http://www.militaryflighttraining.com/Event.aspx?id=752556)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

With a small Hawk T2 buy, there were already moves afoot to download a lot of the old 208(R) training to BFJT so the Hawk could be reserved for more tactical stuff. When I was last at Linton they were introducing more complex tactical formation and a few other things so it could be refreshed on the Hawk rather than taught from scratch.

If you cut out the Tucano stage, and jump straight from a SEP to a Hawk, then you're going to need to do a lot of extra flying on the jet to compensate.

The best solution is undoubtedly a decent basic trainer. A PC21 would be great. An M311 equivalent, a small jet (modern small jets don't have the issues that led most people to look at a performance turboprop in the role, so why not?), and a long course that gives everyone a solid grounding in military flying disciplines before streaming would be even better.

Trouble is, our current scheme works. We have guys flying Hercules and Chinook who never flew a Tucano and aren't found wanting, so who's going to pony up the money to give everyone more flying in a more expensive aircraft? EFT in its current guise works.

Given our tiny fleet of T2s, we could do with a better basic trainer to fill the gap more, and cover both the old BFJT syllabus and the old FJAFT one. What I can see happening, though, is someone working out the cost of sending a pilot through EFT, then translating that into Tucano hours, and adding that number of Tucano hours to the first half of BFJT. Stream them at BHT and see if they can hack it. Would you get the same product if you replaced 60 Tutor hours with 10 Tucano ones?

[just another jocky]

Would you get the same product if you replaced 60 Tutor hours with 10 Tucano ones?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Could someone just remind me why we want to get rid of EFT/G115E?

[thing]

The messes are virtually empty at Cranwell and the airspace is pretty empty as well

Why is Waddo cct always clogged up with King Airs then?

[iRaven]

I would hardly call Waddington's circuit "clogged up". If the King Airs didn't come the WAD ATCOs would probably run out of currency! I also expect that the instructors like coming to WAD because it's near, it's not too busy and it gives the student a different pattern and plate to practise on.

iRaven

[Willard Whyte]

Why is Waddo cct always clogged up with King Airs then?

Not all King Airs are Cranwell's.

[thing]

I would hardly call Waddington's circuit "clogged up". Well, sitting at the hold with me for 10 minutes waiting to get off or orbiting over Swinderby waiting to get in will give you time to reflect on your statement...:)

Edit: It may not look busy but an a/c on a squillion mile radar approach still stops you from getting off. As for the guys and gals in ATC, they invariably do what they can for us and tend to be rather excellent; indeed some of the braver souls will come up to see what an instrument approach is like from the noisy end.

Willard, where are these non Cranwell King Airs likely to be from? I'm not up to speed anymore on where MoD assets are.

[Willard Whyte]

There are a few 'special' King Airs painted grey - the raf calls them Shadow R1 - based at Waddo.

[thing]

Ah, I knew about those...I thought you meant training a/c.

[Hueymeister]

So any news?

[AllTrimDoubt]

So any news?

Yes.................

[Hueymeister]

So....what news?

[Hummingfrog]

yes do enlighten us all with the news.

HF

[just another jocky]

Still grounded.

[camelspyyder]

give 'em a chance.

The snow delayed the FOD PLOD by over a week.

The area to be searched extends the best part of a mile from the airfield,

and some of the fields have been ploughed since the incident.

I am sure that the bits of Grob that are found will be with the AIB soonest and

we'll all know when the initial findings are published.

CS

[Roland Pulfrew]

we'll all know when the initial findings are published.

3 - 6 months? With no EFT?

Just as well the RAF didn't get rid of a pool of post EFT student pilots....:}

[Gene Genie]

I understand that those little white planes are imminently to start reappearing. With a shiny new type of propeller thingy...

[brokenlink]

Hopefully this time without the habit of converting from a three blade unit to 2 in mid flight.

[Hummingfrog]

little white planes are imminently to start reappearing

Just got back from hols - any news - is it flying again - do I need to dust off my flipcards?

HF

[just another jocky]

HF....hold off on the duster for a little while yet.

[bobward]

Word on the Air cadet scene says it';ll be a while yet before they let the kid's loose again. Priority will rightly be given to others higher up the food chain.

For us in Naaarfuk, that's a double whammy as our gliding school is in limbo right now. What price the 'Air' bit in Air training Corps?????:sad::{

[snapper1]

bobward, my gliding club has agreed to help out by flying cadets. Instructors have volunteered for extra duty days to acomodate them. Your local gliding clubs in East Anglia will probably be doing the same.

[Arclite01]

Bobward

You ring the SAR people at Wattisham......................

Arc

[dctyke]

I'm told there has not been flying at Linton for a while now, anyone in the know?

[brokenlink]

Bobward, some of the cadets in Beds & Cambs are also affected.